Teeter v. Flemming’s Empirical Analysis
270 F.2d 871 · 1959
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 22 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently April 1988 · most notably Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (1972), Kerner v. Flemming (1960)
39 federal appellate · 22 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on 168 F. Supp. 291 - Aaron v. Fleming · 166 F. Supp. 44 - Dunn v. Folsom · 169 F. Supp. 240 - Hill v. Fleming · Fuller v. Folsom
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * the statute did not require utter helplessness, but only inability to engage in substantial and gainful activity commensurate with one’s age, education, job training and experience, and mental and physical capacity.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The expert opinion of Dr. Morris as to disability and inability to engage in any substantial gainful employment, was admissible evidence for consideration by the referee and not, in itself, binding on him. But as it was not controverted by substantial evidence to the contrary, the referee’s adverse decision on the ultimate fact was properly set aside.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * The claimant’s proof that he is not qualified to engage in any substantial gainful activity is not adequately countered by the [Social Security] Administration’s suggestions of possible employment. “The word ‘any’ must be read in the light of what is reasonably possible, not of what is conceivable. The statute must be given a reasonable interpretation. It is a remedial statute and must be construed liberally. It was not the intention of Congress to impose a test so severe as that required by the Secretary [of Health, Education and Welfare], and to exact as a condition precedent to the maintenance of a claim the elimination of every possibility of gainful employment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ribicoff v. Hughes
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.